## Facts

- Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc. (CMCR) adopted a 1995 drug and alcohol testing policy applicable to all employees and made compliance “a condition of employment.”
- The policy prohibited employees from being under the influence of alcohol at work and from being under the influence of illegal drugs and various other substances, including some legally used medications.
- The policy required employees to disclose “all drugs present in their body,” including prescription and over-the-counter medications, and contemplated follow-up questions and random testing to enforce compliance.
- Employees were told they had to sign a written consent form as a condition of continued employment.
- “Jane Roe,” a CMCR accounts manager, refused to sign the consent form, asserting the policy required impermissible medical inquiries under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Roe sought declaratory and injunctive relief; she did not claim she had been discharged under the policy.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Roe, enjoined enforcement of the policy, and awarded attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.
- CMCR appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Roe had Article III standing to challenge the policy despite not having been terminated or subjected to a completed examination.
2. Whether the policy constituted a prohibited “medical examination” or “disability-related inquiry” of a current employee under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).
3. Whether CMCR proved the policy was “job-related and consistent with business necessity” within the statutory exception.
4. Whether Roe qualified as a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment that CMCR’s policy violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).
- The court held Roe had standing because CMCR conditioned continued employment on signing the consent and complying with the policy, creating an imminent and concrete threat of injury.
- The court held the policy’s required disclosure of all medications and related follow-up testing/inquiry constituted a disability-related inquiry likely to reveal whether an employee had a disability.
- The court held CMCR did not carry its burden to show the policy’s breadth was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- The court affirmed that Roe was a prevailing party and remanded for determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), an employer generally may not require medical examinations or make inquiries of current employees as to whether they have a disability or the nature or severity of a disability, unless job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- Standing exists where an employer policy presents a credible, imminent threat of enforcement that forces an employee to choose between surrendering protected statutory interests and risking adverse employment action.
- A required disclosure of all medications, coupled with testing and follow-up explanations, can be a disability-related inquiry when it is likely to reveal medical conditions associated with disability.
- The “business necessity” exception requires more than generalized workplace safety assertions; the employer must show the scope of inquiry is sufficiently tied to job needs and not broader than necessary to address the asserted risk.
- A plaintiff who obtains injunctive and declaratory relief on an ADA claim is a prevailing party eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that a mandatory, across-the-board workplace policy requiring employees to disclose all medications and submit to associated testing and inquiry violated the ADA’s limits on employee medical inquiries, was not justified by business necessity, and supported prevailing-party attorney’s fees.


Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1997)